In the previous article we entered the company censorship. In this article, we summarize the company censorship with the five titles of No logo written by Naomi Klein.
We suppose that censorship is implemented by only government or other public institutions either blocked off and limited content due to political, religious reasons. But Klein shows us that this is a sanction not only for these groups but also for the big companies that have become giants of the industry and also for the sub firm and even the arts and artists.
So what makes these companies overall, of course, is the retail and media sector. Wal-Mart and Blockbuster are the most known of these giants who decide from what kind of product to how much to stocked and how to get on the rack.
Walmart intervened covers of Magazines and CDs, and even on the content lyrics or not put their product on shelves. Likewise, Blockbuster rejected the films on the grounds that the films did not fit the “family-type entertainment” image. This forced the producers to produce censored or diversified recorded content. Therefore, it is possible to see how the movement in this area is a message and how it affects culture and art industry.
When we look at these gigantic corporations, they come from the same geographical region – Blockbuster Texas and WallMart Arkansas – from the same Christian culture. And neither company has accepted the censorship grounds with the understanding that it does not conform to the “family” structure. For this reason, they have returned all kinds of content that do not fit and threaten into the image of “family-type entertainment” which they create.
For example, Wall-Mart rejected because of there was a fetus on the cover of their album despite Nirvana is a very successful group and Kmart had the same behavior on the grounds that some song names and contents of Prodiy were also against this image. Many producers have continued to serve films to the NC-17 class or to market with two different versions.
Or magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Vibe could not go on magazine covers with content and cover designs that would not match the demands of these giants. Like the other companies, instead of having to think about the possibilities that have such a market share in their market, they have prepared a preliminary draft for their liking, and they are going to change if they do not like it.
In summary, it is seen that the giant retail companies intervene in art and culture by using their “family image” in the direction of their own wishes.
In the previous chapter we have discussed the company census implemented by the retail sector. But in this section we will take another side of it. The size of the cansur rough draft is just the face of the ice, the censorship of how the secret is used in secret.
Perhaps the least cognitive feature of censorship is the marriage of cultural companies or the creation of a submarket of a giant brand. We can also say that “conservative” companies that do not want to leave a producer to oppose them are wholly or partly owned, or in other words, they have the right to speak.
For example, Disney had the right to block all content or to criticize politically politically that ABC News would be “harmful to the company’s marriage” to all its content and news. So much so that the parent company banned ABC’s award-winning reporter Brian Ross and producer Rhonda Schwartz for reporting against Disney. Disney initially allowed to publish the news because Disney was not the only company in the news, but later learned that it was in the middle of it with the “sex scandal” as soon as the details of the news were entered. That’s why ABC news head has rejected the draft news. In this case, it shows how the synergy between the two companies which is the company marriage is affected by the phenomenon, in addition how censorship is applied to the synergy. It’s a kind of self-censorship intrusive and oppressive regime. And ABC is just one example of this.
As we have seen with past examples; writers, producers and even artists have been forced to submit to the regime of repressive percussion leaders or media owners. But China is the largest example of this country.
China has been ruled by the Communist Party, which holds the ropes of all the media and people, and by Deng Xiaoping has begun to feel the Chinese Cold in the industrialization of the Western media, after slowly opening up the closed structure of the country and the censored foreign media bans. Because the Western media would have to play according to China’s wishes. According to a report published in The South China Morning Post in 1992, it was guaranteed that they would be independent of the police and censorship unless they were against the law and were content on the Party line.
That’s where everything started at this point. The BBC World Service news was released on the Chinese cable channel with the intention of reporting on the Chinese industry. The government of China which rewarded the medias who supported government, was forbidden to have special satellite antennas and their possession that did not follow the government’s line of media organs.
China was careful to publish only ten filminths a year and to have them controlled. They publish positive ones from their own side, and they do not even allow negative ones. In this case, following a reasonable strategy, Disney continued to market the Mulan, which took the story of the 1300-year-old Sui Dynasty, and achieved to overcome the Chinese government’s ban. And the pioneer newspaper called it a Chinese-friendly film. In fact, this event opened a door for Disneyland, which is planned to be established in Hong Kong.
The coldness of China is very prevalent today in terms of telling the power of multinational corporations and even giant corporations. This type of censorship is the result of potential globalization, which is spreading both internally and nationally. And China is just one example known in the world. Countries like Indonesia and Nigeria have the same repressive regime.
Such censorship is unfortunately not only applied to brand names, but also to producers of culture. The promissory brands and products are somehow encoded in your brain with a kind of Morse code, but when you use it, you are considered a criminal offense.
Trademarks have the copyright to identify who owns the goods, and to prevent anyone else or any other company from using the product. For this reason, we are also seeing that when we use brands or logos, we are not being sued for copyright.At first we can see that it is the most natural right for the brand name. But there are also end points such that copyright and trademark attacks have become incomprehensible.
As a baker, you can not make a Simpson painting on a cake, and you can not paint Pluto and Donald Duck on the wall of playground in a small town ball, you can not wear a Barney Mor dinosaur costume, and even when you wear this purple dinosaur costume you will commit an illegal crime. The writer here has tried to show in this way that his copyright has crossed the rights issue and turned into bullying.
McDonald’s, on the other hand, has consistently filed suits against Scottish small shops and restaurant owners. However, in the surnames of the nation, there was a preliminary factor of Mc away from competitiveness. These companies are McAllan’s sausage stand, McMunchies sandwich shop, and the owner of Elizabeth McCaughey’s McCoffee. The only crime is to have the brand name with their surnames.
In the culture industry, too, things were not different. The artists would continue to take copyright laws as they share and rearrange the language and freedoms of the art that came from the past and produce new products.
We see examples of freedom and trademark tyranny, language and culture being privatized, and at the same time an increasingly restrictive freedom of expression. Another example is Kmart. A disgruntled employee opens a web page called Kmart Sucks. He is using a lot of accusations and expressions about Kmart and suing him. What is surprising is that he was sued not for insulting charges, but for unauthorized use of the trademark K. Defamation cases were on the rise when this right was not available.
If you have a greater wealth and size than the budget of many countries, you are the only one who writes and plays the rules of the game.
There is a chain that comes from company censorship, to synergy censorship, China Chill, copyright tyranny, and privatization of city squares. There is the privatization of the Town squares in the last zone of the chain.
Old bookstores, cafes, where people have used to be meeting places, have taken their place at gigantic shopping centers. So it is the giant-marked city dots of real city squares. This place is just like the city square, closed to protest, political rallies and social debates. The only language spoken is marketing and consumer talk. When you make a peace protest at a shopping mall, the security officers are throwing you out because you protest, not because you protest.
Ironically, it was the forced removal of protesters in 1997 at the Mauriner Downtown Jazz Festival outdoors in Toronto. What made it ironic was that the area was the most socially charitable area, but that it was owned by the cigarette company during the jazz festival. Well, the squares have begun to be privatized. Any place purchased will automatically change as the buyer requests it. “The most annoying statement of the company’s luck is that it happens when a person is not a place to sell,” he writes.
Sponsors are organizations that interfere with what an athlete wears and what logos he carries and what he has to talk about. A kind of billboard. For example, Muhammad Ali’s opposition to the Vietnam war is like Michael Jordan’s Republicans buying sport shoes. Canadian runner Donovan Bailey said he was not an athlete,Donovan or Donovan, because he said he was “as arrogant as the Americans”.
Or the famous Fowler example. Fowler lifted his official form after the second goal during a match. On the t-shirt below, he wrote, “Since 1995 Liverpool’s 500 dock workers have been recruited.” This living socio-economy was itself a reaction to this as a Liverpool, but branding and censorship would continue to be implemented again.
And the Liverpool Football Club cut Fowler a penalty of 2000 Swiss francs. As all these were not enough, the letters “C” and “K” were written in the dockers on the tshirt and these photographs were included in the whole British press. He threatened to sue the designer with the reason that it resembles the logos of a big brand, Calvin Klein.
To sum up, the authors say that this monopoly business world is not just about entering our lives, but also interfering with their habitats, and narrowing the space for people who are not in the corporate mentality.
P.s.: No Logo, by Naomi Klein, has been used in this article. The information given by Naomi Klein about company censorship has been briefly explained to you.
For detailed information, you can access the entire book from here.
© 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu maddeleri gereğince yapılan her türlü izinsiz alıntılanma, yayınlama hakkında yasal işlem başlatılacaktır.
All Rights Reserved © 5846.